Right, but we don't know what actions have been taken up to this point...what kind of jail time should we be looking at? Keep in mind suspending a license won't stop a person from driving either.

He was driving without a license, it had been suspended a while ago.

I tried looking online for the article but I can't find it. Not that it really matters, this happens way more than we think. In this area alone they talked about several people who have records like this.

Thank you BAW. What an incredibly difficult story. Living through it must have been horrible. No one deserves to see or be a part of something so mindlessly tragic.

People say "one or two beers" are ok, but one or two beers are all it takes to skew judgement, ruin perception and reaction time. It is a difficult situation, especially with alcohol having such a firm grip on people (i.e. people are dependent on it socially, and I'm not speaking just alcoholics) but it's apparent something needs to be done.If not on the prevention side then on the punishment side. Bonoman is right that the judicial systems are seriously missing the step in these cases.

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar I agree rehab only works on those who want it, but the courts order rehab all the time. But this guy has a serious problem.

What's worse trying to rehabilitate and one falling off the wagon and doing it again, or one spending a few months in jail and getting out and doing it again? Try to fix and fail or time out and fail, I'd rather try to fix, but that's just me.

You know, we don't know this man is an alcoholic. These incidents could have happened just after nights of drinking like anyone would do, except he chose to get in a car and drive. He needs to be punished for the crime, which is drunk driving. He needs to be thrown in jail. He needs the punishments to get worse every time. So they've taken his license away - big deal. He obviously has no problem still driving.

That said, I don't think that that was the case. He obviously does have a serious problem with alcohol. If we're going to rehab then rehab from prison. But this jackass needs punishment, before does it again and kills someone.

You know, we don't know this man is an alcoholic. These incidents could have happened just after nights of drinking like anyone would do, except he chose to get in a car and drive. He needs to be punished for the crime, which is drunk driving. He needs to be thrown in jail. He needs the punishments to get worse every time. So they've taken his license away - big deal. He obviously has no problem still driving.

That said, I don't think that that was the case. He obviously does have a serious problem with alcohol. If we're going to rehab then rehab from prison. But this jackass needs punishment, before does it again and kills someone.

I don't know how anyone can argue "semantics" about drunk driving after reading the story BAW posted, let alone the COUNTLESS other stories we hear dayafterdayafterday.

Bonoman this isn't directed at you, but I think the BAC in your province of .08 is excessive. Some people aren't obviously going to be 'drunk' if they are at that, but being drunk is not the starting point for being relatively incapable of driving.
Lets assume a fellow is for all intents and puropses drunk after 8 beers. His reading might be .06. How many beers before number 8 were his reflexes affected? He may stop at number 6, knowing he is under the legal limit, assuming he is ok to drive. the law says he is, so he drives. Unbeknownst to him, while he can walk and talk well, his mind is as sharp as he feels it could possibly be. How does he know though that this is actually the case until it is tested? Does it require a car coming at him from a T-Section to test his reaction time? Many things can affect our reflexes. Fatigue, alcohol, stress, distractions and so on. We are affected by alcohol long before we reach 'the drunk stage' and will not have a clue how acutely we have been affected until it is tested. Unfortunately, it is most often tested the hard way when it is going to be tested at all. I just dont think a standardised level of BAC levels is any kind of indication. It has huge room for error and that is even without taking into account what it takes to be actually 'drunk'.

Originally posted by Angela Harlem Bonoman this isn't directed at you, but I think the BAC in your province of .08 is excessive. Some people aren't obviously going to be 'drunk' if they are at that, but being drunk is not the starting point for being relatively incapable of driving.
Lets assume a fellow is for all intents and puropses drunk after 8 beers. His reading might be .06. How many beers before number 8 were his reflexes affected? He may stop at number 6, knowing he is under the legal limit, assuming he is ok to drive. the law says he is, so he drives. Unbeknownst to him, while he can walk and talk well, his mind is as sharp as he feels it could possibly be. How does he know though that this is actually the case until it is tested? Does it require a car coming at him from a T-Section to test his reaction time? Many things can affect our reflexes. Fatigue, alcohol, stress, distractions and so on. We are affected by alcohol long before we reach 'the drunk stage' and will not have a clue how acutely we have been affected until it is tested. Unfortunately, it is most often tested the hard way when it is going to be tested at all. I just dont think a standardised level of BAC levels is any kind of indication. It has huge room for error and that is even without taking into account what it takes to be actually 'drunk'.

I completly agree with you.

BAC isnt the be all and end all. There can be so many contributing factors that are not taken into consideration. I know that i can have 4 beers and be fine but you might have 4 beers and be stumbiling around. I do disagree with you that, if i understand you courectly, that peolpe are affected when they take that first sip of beer(i know you didnt say that but it seems like your implying it.)

Also, what is drunk anyways. I see drunk as being not able to function at all. While some think buzzed is drunk.

See thats the thing i dont believe this to be true in most cases. I dont think it skews judgement in most people and it doesnt ruin reactrion time.

Drinking does increase reaction time, even drinking only a small amount. While it might not be noticeable to a person, even a small increase in reaction time might be the difference between a person being able to avoid an accident and being involved in an accident.

It's just the same with speeding: driving five miles over the speed limit might not seem like a lot, but it can add something like 10m to the distance it takes the driver to stop which would make all the difference if they were trying to avoid something like a child running into the street.

Sorry, but I have absolutely *no* tolerance for people who drink and drive: if they choose to risk their lives it's one thing but I have no time for people who think they have the right to risk the life of everyone else in a car or walking along the street just because they felt like having a drink that evening.

Originally posted by nbcrusader Underestimating the impairment caused by even small amounts of alcohol is a great danger. Too often, I hear the "I made it home safely" as the justification for further drinking and driving.

Should the same punishment(whatever you believe to be a fair one) be extended to those who should wear glasses and don't when they drive, the elderly who just plain can't, inexperienced drivers, those on medication, and those who can't multi-task and are smoking or talking on the cell phone? Because all of these have the same dimishment of reaction time and awareness than having one or two drinks IMO.

IMO people who talk on cellphones while driving a car should get punished, as should those who are smoking or doing anything else which takes their attention away from the road.

But how can you punish someone for being an "inexperienced driver"? Everyone who drives was inexperienced at some point, but would you say if they had an accident they ought to be punished more severely than a more experienced driver?

Not drinking and driving is *so* simple and it can so obviously make driving safer. I don't see what is so hard in telling people that if they wish to drive a car then they can't drink alcohol. Is it really such a huge inconvenience to people to have to go without alcohol for an evening? Considering how many people are killed every year by drink drivers, I hardly think expecting drivers to show a little responsibility is too much to ask.